Recommended Posts

Philly says you're wrong. Philly's last year as a playoff team was in 2012-13 season where they got knocked out of the semi conference final. They're rebuild started about the same time as ours. They are currently 28-25. In 2014 they selected Embiid with the 3rd pick (we took AG at 4). 2015, they took Okafor with again the 3rd . 2016 they took Simmons number 1 and this previous draft they moved up to 1 from 3 and selected Fultz whom the jury is still out on due to whatever.

Here we are however after only 2 seasons of trying to tank and the last 3 trying to win. Not only are we not winning but instead sitting in purgatory. We've had only 1 top 3 pick.

Why? That's what's missing from your argument. It's not just some blanketed idea like tanking promotes losing. That's not always true as 76ers current situation is evident of that.

Its the why's?

So it's not that I don't disagree that tanking CAN lead to further losing. I disagree that tanking alone promotes losing. It's the other variables. We simply did not stay committed to tanking because management thought the same way you did and here we are, still losing and under a complete revamp of our front office resulting from that.

A front office that so far imo hasn't given me a ton of confidence.

The idea that we were only "trying" to tank for 2 years doesn't really make sense. If you purposely have lousy and/or excessively young players, you're tanking, no matter what you say you want. That's the kind of line-up we built for ourselves, and we're still reaping the "benefits". How much worse can you be than the worst record in basketball for the 2011-2014 seasons (which is 3 seasons, btw).

The argument that we weren't "tanking" long enough, even though I don't agree with the premise, is also non-falsifiable. You tank for 5 years and still terrible? Well you need to tank for 5 more. Tank for 10 years and no draft superstar? Well, you need to tank for 20. There is no end to that approach, only a deeper hole to dig out of.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Denver ended their play off run with the 2012-13 season and began a sort of rebuild. Since then they have gone 36-46, 30-52, 33-49, and 40-42. They currently sit 7th in the western conference with a 30-26.

My point? The Nuggets have managed to rebuild their starting line up and team without tanking. They have prioritized developing their young players and acquiring assets (picks and players). For example they traded Ty Lawson to Houston and a second round pick for a bunch of players, cash, and a first round pick; and they acquired a first round pick from Portland by trading Afflalo and Gee, they also received Will Barton in this trade. Essentially they have managed to rebuild their team without losing and they look set to make the play offs gain. Now we might argue over how good they can become but they have found a star in Jokic to build around and he's one of the most skilled big men in the league (16.6 ppg, 10.4 trb, 5.6 apg) and have a young ascending back court in Murray and Harris. Just imagine this team had they kept Mitchell and Gobert!

So rebuilding can be done without tanking, but for that approach to be successful the front office needs a bit of luck to land those difference making players through the draft, trades, and free agency. There is no reason why this team could not have been rebuilt and back in the play offs by now. The issue is we have made some questionable moves over the past few seasons. For example, we had Dario Saric but decided to turn him into Elfrid Payton, thankfully we didn't end up giving them a first round pick; and we also had Domantas Sabonis, but packaged him with Oladipo for a declining Serge Ibaka. Quite why we gave up on Oladipo is still something that puzzles me since he slotted in at SG, Fournier at SF, and Gordon at PF - unless of course we did it because of Hezonja (?). In 2017 we decided to spend our sixth pick on Jonathan Isaac, granted it is early days for him and he might turn into a star, but would we not have been better off spending that pick on Lauri Markkanen or Dennis Smith Jr? At this point I would say we made the wrong pick because I preferred both of those guys over Isaac in the build up to last year's draft, but maybe Isaac proves me wrong.

I do agree that had we tanked and landed a couple of first or second overall picks during 2014-17, then we could have got a couple of franchise changing players. However, there is also the potential that we could have still drafted Aaron Gordon in 2014, or preferred Russell and Okafor in 2015, or liked/got Ingram or Brown in 2016, or even still rated Isaac as a top prospect in 2017. Our front office has made questionable and poor decisions, so I wouldn't place any money whatsoever on them picking one of the players we have seen develop into stars during the past handful of drafts had they been picking first or second. They could still have got it wrong. Perhaps our new front office will be different and get things right, but we'll have to wait and see. Would committing to losing this season for a top pick and next season for another top pick benefit us? Potentially, but again only if our front office don't try to think outside the box and do something different, or pursue guys that have length and defensive potential over more offensive orientated players with questionable defense (e,g. Isaac over Markkanen and Smith).

I'll take Phillies tank results of Ben Simmons and Embiid over Denver's stagnation any day of the week. Know why? No one is gonna come knocking on Denver's door to play with Murray and Jokic. Simmons and Embiid? Watch what happens if those two stay healthy.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The idea that we were only "trying" to tank for 2 years doesn't really make sense. If you purposely have lousy and/or excessively young players, you're tanking, no matter what you say you want. That's the kind of line-up we built for ourselves, and we're still reaping the "benefits". How much worse can you be than the worst record in basketball for the 2011-2014 seasons (which is 3 seasons, btw).

The argument that we weren't "tanking" long enough, even though I don't agree with the premise, is also non-falsifiable. You tank for 5 years and still terrible? Well you need to tank for 5 more. Tank for 10 years and no draft superstar? Well, you need to tank for 20. There is no end to that approach, only a deeper hole to dig out of.

So you think skiles was brought in by Martins to continue to tank?

I won't go much further than this because I'm just repeating facts now. We tanked for 2 years. Management had enough and brought their guy in to "right the ship". He got his ol pals, it didn't work. He was an jackass and quit. He had no desire to develop and tank. Neither did Devos. Skiles wanted vets. HIS vets. That's a step away from tanking.

Link to post

Share on other sites

I won't go much further than this because I'm just repeating facts now. We tanked for 2 years. Management had enough and brought their guy in to "right the ship". He got his ol pals, it didn't work. He was an jackass and quit. He had no desire to develop and tank. Neither did Devos. Skiles wanted vets. HIS vets. That's a step away from tanking.

4 minutes ago, Justin Jaudon said:

Except your facts are wrong. Unless you think year 3 with Vaughn/Borrego was not tanking.

Facts are wrong about year 3, and so is the premise. You can bring a new guy in and say "we're not tanking anymore" but if you have a bad roster, you're still tanking. Doesn't matter what your stated intentions are, only what you've built.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Except your facts are wrong. Unless you think year 3 with Vaughn/Borrego was not tanking.

Yeah 3 years. My bad. Still doesn't negate the last 3 years of making win now moves has done more harm than an proper tank would have.

Let me also state that I don't have a preference. I don't think there's one size that fits all. We've seen enough to where signing star FA's, make now moves, the RIGHT moves, can help, and yes tanking can as well.

Timing, who's available, what other teams are doing all play a role.

What path we take to me is depending where we're at, what is in the draft and FA.

Its like asking what's your favorite wrench. Depends on the nut.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Facts are wrong about year 3, and so is the premise. You can bring a new guy in and say "we're not tanking anymore" but if you have a bad roster, you're still tanking. Doesn't matter what your stated intentions are, only what you've built.

Big difference between trying to tank and just sucking. You try to tank hard enough you're increasing your odds to draft a player, which the graph I presented shows you're more than likely, has more of a impact.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Lol. Soo tanking promotes losing but a team that extremely tanked are a fringe playoff team BUUUUT, they're not not a championship team while we abandoned tank and has been trying to win for 3 years and not even close to a playoff team is your argument against tanking?!

Point is, their tanking hasn't paid off at all yet. They are currently the 8th seed with the Pistons (who now have a vet All Star) breathing on their necks. If they actually develop a championship team then good on them, BUT THEY HAVE TO OR ELSE THE TANK WAS NOT WORTH IT. You don't justify three straight 60+ loss seasons (including a 72 loss season) on purpose to just be a playoff team.

...and again, absolutely NONE of the championship contending teams in the NBA right now tanked their way to the situations they are in. So, this idea that I keep hearing other Magic fans (not just on here) that we need to tank to build a title contender is just false.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Big difference between trying to tank and just sucking. You try to tank hard enough you're increasing your odds to draft a player, which the graph I presented shows you're more than likely to draft a player that has more of a impact.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'll take Phillies tank results of Ben Simmons and Embiid over Denver's stagnation any day of the week. Know why? No one is gonna come knocking on Denver's door to play with Murray and Jokic. Simmons and Embiid? Watch what happens if those two stay healthy.

Perhaps, then again Paul Millsap did decide to go and play with that young Denver team. Ok he is no LeBron James but he's still a very good player and one of the better PFs in the league. However, it is worth noting that the Denver Nuggets are a small market team and typically they are not destinations for top free agents, whereas Philly are potentially a big market team that could attract free agents. That can make a huge difference in itself. Now I do agree that if Simmons and Embiid stay health they are potential perennial all stars and that would be very appealing to potential free agents, but the market difference between those two teams is also another big factor.

The thing to note with Philly is that they have got lucky with their tanks. Charlotte were terrible and ended up slipping one spot, so instead of getting Anthony Davis they got Michael Kidd-Gilchrist. When we had the second overall pick we got Victor Oladipo, who went first? Anthony Bennett. So for every lucky team like Philly, you get teams that slip and miss out on a star, or they are bad and pick high in weak classes. I give them credit for sticking with their tanking approach year after year until they hit on star level talent, but can you imagine the reaction on these boards and within our fan base if our team decided to gut this roster and commit to being the worst team in the league (by far) for the next few seasons (at least)? I don't think it would be met positively. Maybe we would reap the rewards in the end but it could certainly be dark days for this team.

Also, my argument is that you don't need to tank to rebuild a team. If you want another example of a team that rebuilt themselves without tanking - Houston. After losing in the semi finals to the Lakers in 2009, they spent the next three seasons hovering above .500 and missing out on the play offs. In 2012 they managed to acquire James Harden and they haven't looked back. Another example, Toronto. When Chris Bosh left, they have managed to build one of the best teams in the east without tanking and top picks. The Warriors have built one of the best teams in NBA history even before Durant join them in free agency without tanking and top picks - Curry 7th overall pick, Thompson 11th overall pick, and Green 35th overall. They even had Harrison Barnes, 7th overall, as part of their title winning team. So teams can rebuild without tanking, it just takes a bit of luck, good scouting, and player development.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Point is, their tanking hasn't paid off at all yet. They are currently the 8th seed with the Pistons (who now have a vet All Star) breathing on their necks. If they actually develop a championship team then good on them, BUT THEY HAVE TO OR ELSE THE TANK WAS NOT WORTH IT. You don't justify three straight 60+ loss seasons (including a 72 loss season) on purpose to just be a playoff team.

...and again, absolutely NONE of the championship contending teams in the NBA right now tanked their way to the situations they are in. So, this idea that I keep hearing other Magic fans (not just on here) that we need to tank to build a title contender is just false.

Your putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about tanking=ships. In fact I don't think you can make a 100% accurate argument that one is better than other.

I said tanking means better odds at a high pick which means better odds at a good player.

I like those odds better than finding the next Gianni on the lower end of the draft.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yeah 3 years. My bad. Still doesn't negate the last 3 years of making win now moves has done more harm than an proper tank would have.

Let me also state that I don't have a preference. I don't think there's one size that fits all. We've seen enough to where signing star FA's, make now moves, the RIGHT moves, can help, and yes tanking can as well.

Timing, who's available, what other teams are doing all play a role.

What path we take to me is depending where we're at, what is in the draft and FA.

Its like asking what's your favorite wrench. Depends on the nut.

You and I agree that the moves we made the 2 years previous to this one (we didn't make any win-now moves this year, we just basically stood pat, which isn't tanking but not trying to win either) have been bad. We just disagree on whether it is the motivation or the execution that is the problem. Your point is that if we'd continued to tank harder we could have ended up with Ben Simmons or Jayson Tatum/Lauri Markanen?, which would put us in better position to win, plus we shouldn't have blown our wad on Biyombo and co. My point is that We had the players to end the tank (Oladipo and Gordon), we just mismanaged those players; the motivation wasn't the problem, it was the execution.

Saying ending the tank is why we suck is like blaming Hedo for Lee's missed layup at the end of Game 2 of the 2009 NBA Finals. The opportunity was there for us to end the tank. We failed because Skiles quit and Hennigan orchestrated quite possibly the worst off-season in NBA history (exaggeration, but certainly the worst in Orlando Magic history).